A New 'Treaty' Grand Campaign

[DOCUP]

I know the CLV would of been a failure in RL.  But, if you think about it, it does have its merits.  CLV's could provide some protection from commerce raiders, also provide some air ASW for TFs.  If mixed in with a SAG they can provide NavS.  During the 20's and 30's this would of been big.  Think of them as the same as the Jap CS's.  Most of the IJ players use them as a NavS, and air ASW platform until the conversions come along. CLV's could also be converted to CVL's just like RA.  Heck with the Japanese you could have one of them already being converted to a CVL at the beginning of the game, or both.
 
I like the idea of the earlier BC's.  Be great with the CV's or as convoy raiders early in the game. 
 
I would like to hear more on the Two Ocean Navy Act. 

[derhexer]

I'm looking forward to the scenario. Thanks to all of you who work hard to create these great scenarios and gedankenexperiments with history.

[derhexer]

Never mind

[oldman45]

DOCUP this is a good place to start.

Two Ocean Navy

Another thing about this article is it lays out what they wanted to do in the Pacific and why they didn't.

[John 3rd]

Nice site. Looks like I have some reading to do.

[John 3rd]

Tentative Thinking:

Washington Treaty (in 1922-23 instead of 1921-22)

Capital Ship Additions:
1. Japan gets one new Amagi-Class BC
2. USA gains two Lexington-Class BC.

Tonnage doesn't work out to 60%. The BCs were roughly the same displacement so not sure what to do about that. You might fix that by pulling the 3rd Colorado Class BB (delete West Virginia) and build the two BCs? Tonnage would be a lot closer to 5:3.

Carriers:
1. Allow two experimental carriers for testing purposes instead of just one.
2. Add 15,000 tons to the caps originally set:
---USA/GB to 150,000 T (not 135,000)
---Japan 90,000 T (not 81,000)
This would allow for an addition Light/Medium CV to be built by all parties.

This would be the major changes from the first Conference.

Comments?

[btd64]

John, This looks very interesting to me. I would like to beta test when you reach that point.
Cheers

[John 3rd]

London Treaty Possibilities:

GB and the USA work to iron out their differences on the 'Yardstick' (that failed the Geneva Conference in 1927) and are mostly successful in accomplishing this. GB wants more CL tonnage while the US wants more CA tonnage. Japan comes in from a position of strength having already built up their CA category. A few tweaks occur through the discussions and a Treaty is passed:

Changes:
1. CA Tonnage raised for GB/USA to 175,000 instead of the historical 155,000. Japan gets 122,500 instead of 108,400. The Fleets are allowed to build, respectively, USA/GB 2 CA and Japan 1.5 CA.
2. CL Tonnage is raised from 147,000 to 160,000 for USA/GB. Japan goes from 100,450 to 112,000. Figure 2-3 cruisers added to the cap of each Fleet.
3. Just as in Washington with the Aircraft Carrier being considered 'experimental' and each Fleet getting to build/convert two BB/BC the Big Three agree that each Navy can build two experimental CLV hybrid Cruiser-Carriers not to exceed 12,000 T each.

[oldman45]

I would hate to lose a West Virginia for a BC, not sure the Admirals would agree to that. Perhaps scrap the both the Utahs and one from whatever the next class was, Arkansas I think

[NormS3]

Agreed don't delete the Wee Vee. She's one of the few positive's of my state historically.

Get rid of Colorado and rename the class WV.

[John 3rd]

The British will build two CLV from converted Hawkins Class cruisers. The HMAS Melbourne and HMS Vindictive will start the war available for the Allied Player.

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: oldman45

I would hate to lose a West Virginia for a BC, not sure the Admirals would agree to that. Perhaps scrap the both the Utahs and one from whatever the next class was, Arkansas I think

That could be done. Will think on it some.

[John 3rd]

The Utah's are already demilitarized due to the Treaties. We could take out the Arkansas (26,000 T0 and replace it with West Virginia (32,600 T).

This decision would also help keep Norm3 from being traumatized!

[John 3rd]

The American OOB from Washington/London would be the following:

Add another Langley-Type AV

Still as CVs:
CV2 Lexington
CV3 Saratoga

New BCs:
CC1 Ranger
CC2 Constitution

OR would people prefer it be Constellation and Constitution?

A new CVL to be determined. Figure a smaller Ranger with about 45-48 aircraft. Need a name.

Two CAs

Two or Three CLs (perhaps early Helena-Class)

Two CLV
CLV1 Charlotte
CLV2 ??? (Need a suitable name here)

[John 3rd]

Japan's OOB would gain:

Add another Hosho Type 'experimental carrier.' (CVE)

BB/BC CVs:
Akagi
Should we keep the earthquake and go with Kaga OR run with the next Amagi in line: Atago?

Amagi-Class BC:
BC Ashitaka

Add a CVL closer to the CVLs of the war carrying 33-36 aircraft. Perhaps a scaled back Ryujo?

Add two CAs

Add two-four CLs (Japanese being probably smaller then the big American CLs)

Add two G.6 Aircraft Cruisers

[oldman45]

I would use Constellation for the BC. I would go with Jacksonville for the hybrid due to the 3 naval air stations here. [;)]

As far as the first CVL, the naming convention called for warships or battles, so why not pick a warship from 1812. Here are a couple of possibilities;

John Adams, Argus, Vixen and Viper.

[John 3rd]

Nice thinking OLDMAN!

CC1 Constellation

CLV1 Charlotte
CLV2 Jacksonville

For the CVL I shall take votes on the Adams, Argus, Vixen, and Viper. Make your vote COUNT!

[oldman45]

I vote Argus just to take the name back from the RN. [:D]

[John 3rd]

That is ONE vote! Will take other nominations as well as votes. The Polls close on Friday.

Just wrote JWE about which DaBabes Scenario to use as the format/base of the Mod.

I intend two variants of this Mod:

1. Pure vanilla (Scenario 1)
2. Direct tine-in to RA for a totally different timeline.

Your choice as to what you play!

[EHansen]

Vixen and Viper do go together.